Conversation 1. On the eldership

For some reason, many people who wrote about the eldership before the revolution or write about it now, it seems to me, miss two very important things. First of all, when speaking of eldership, for some reason they do not say anything about mental work. One is not connected with the other. Perhaps in the mind of a person who discusses this topic, it goes without saying: eldership and mental work are two inseparably linked things. But it is difficult to understand this from the text. One gets the impression that some kind of guidance, revelation of thoughts, obedience is possible without engaging in mental activity. In my opinion, if there is no mental activity, if there is no practice of the Jesus Prayer, then, in fact, there is no one to guide and there is nothing to guide for: there will be no questions, and there will be no problems, and there will be no need for such attentive guidance. Because the eldership, the guidance of the elders, is necessary in the constantly changing, complex, diverse inner life. And there is either no such thing, when a person does not engage in the Jesus Prayer, or there is, but not in the sense of a struggle with oneself and internal warfare, but in the sense of a certain variety of thoughts and passions, which all people have, but a person does not see it. And if some elder (suppose there were one) without the help of the Jesus Prayer tried to heal a person of passions, I think it would be almost impossible. And therefore eldership becomes a kind of abstraction. Everyone discusses the need for eldership: "Yes, eldership is necessary, because without it it is impossible to lead a correct spiritual life." This is all true, but what kind of eldership is possible without mental work? Why is it needed at all then? Who to lead and why? Is it easy to explain to a person that the darkness of passions is at work in him? I think you can understand this without guidance.

Such forgetfulness of mental work is the first serious omission of those people who write and talk about eldership. Moreover, mental work itself is possible without eldership; for a person without guidance, although it is difficult, it is still possible with God's help, with great labor, with sorrows, with the help of the Jesus Prayer, to somehow succeed and be saved. But the leadership will not give anything without prayer. Imagine that a person does not pray the Jesus Prayer - he does not want to, he cannot do it. I don't even know what to explain to him. For example, he says, for example, that he has prodigal thoughts, and what will I tell him? That this is not good? Everyone already knows that this is not good. How can he fight? If I had been told, for example, not to say anything about the Jesus Prayer, then I would not have known how to explain it. The same can be said about everything else: about repentance, about humility, about reasoning. For example, what kind of reasoning can there be if a person does not pray? What will he talk about? And then, how does that grace work in him that will open his eyes to what is happening in him? Therefore, when we speak of eldership, we must understand that eldership is, as it were, a consequence of mental work, or a property, or something necessary to accompany mental work. Even if some ascetic did not have an elder, but himself asceticized in mental work, then he would gain experience, which, to some extent, even if he did not have special reasoning, could be used to help other people – people like him, but just beginning this podvig. And how can one gain experience who does not pray, one who does not feel, who does not have a light in his soul that would enlighten him and allow him to see his sins? St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) says that the first vision of a person who begins to be saved is a vision of his sins. And how can you acquire it if you don't pray, if you don't know how to look inside yourself?

The second serious omission of those who talk about eldership is that they always cite as examples the great elders - Paisius Velichkovsky, Ambrose of Optina and others, perhaps unknown to a wide circle, but outstanding in their spiritual abilities. It's not a matter of celebrity, but really of spiritual gifts. But what should we do then? Where can we get Ambrose of Optina? Of course, it is possible to exalt Father Abraham: not to notice his shortcomings, to praise his virtues, and such a halo will be created, one will get the impression that Father Abraham is just like Ambrose of Optina. For example, Sister A. said that I was joking like Ambrose of Optina. I'm joking, maybe like Ambrose of Optina, but in other respects, probably, I am very different from him. But the point here is not about me, I just want to say that one should not think that eldership is possible only when a person is guided by some outstanding elder. They cite as an example the benefits of only such leadership. Well good. And what about hundreds of monasteries where there are no such outstanding elders and, perhaps, never will be? Does this mean that the eldership is not needed there? If you are not Ambrose of Optina, then that's it? Or then it is necessary to somehow inflate the authority of one's elder or one's elder - for example, to say that sister A. is impassive, that she is thin not because she simply eats little, but because she struggles, and so on. You can come up with anything. But it will turn out to be fiction. Indeed, these people really lead, they are useful, but you need to treat them wisely and understand that the leadership of a more experienced monk is already an eldership. Otherwise, we would not have to hand over a nun or a monk to a godparent at tonsure, for the reason that he is not Ambrose of Optina. In fact, there is such a rule that one cannot be tonsured without a godparent, because the newly-tonsured person needs the guidance of a more experienced monk. That's all. Of course, there are also completely inexperienced mentors, we are not talking about this. But at the same time, it is impossible to idealize everything and demand that the elder be like Ambrose of Optina, otherwise there is no need at all. This is another mistake, a very serious one. Because such praise of the eldership actually denies it as a real monastic activity, as a real property and an urgent necessity of monastic life. As long as we wait for some abbess Arsenia or Hieroschemamonk Ambrose to grow out of our midst, then, perhaps, we will die. You need to look at things soberly.

Thus, when discussing eldership, two very serious mistakes are usually made. The first is that they underestimate or simply omit, perhaps due to some misunderstanding, the importance of mental activity, the practice of the Jesus Prayer, the second is that they exaggerate the requirements that should be made of the elders. And thus, by praising the eldership, they turn it into some kind of abstraction that cannot be applied to life in any way. Our Novo-Tikhvin Monastery opened four years ago. Where can we get Ambrose of Optina? Let's say forty years pass, and sister E., for example, will be 52 years old. She will already be at such a decent age, with a very rich experience and with reason, and here half of her is already dying, never having been honored to see "the Venerable Elder E."

In this way, a person ceases to have confidence in his ordinary brother or sister, who is as passionate as he is, but more experienced - this is the whole point. So many grow cold when they see the shortcomings of their mentor, which, of course, are difficult to hide in the monastery, because we are like one family here and we all watch each other around the clock. You look, for example, at sisters A. or D., at Mother L., maybe you really see shortcomings or imaginary shortcomings and are tempted, you think: "After all, this is not Synclitica, how can I obey her unquestioningly? She tells me to go wash the floor, but she is not Syncletica, I will not wash the floor; let him do some sign, let him bring down fire from heaven, then I will go wash the floor." And when a more experienced nun gives some self-evident, perfectly sensible advice (although, in principle, if we had common sense, we could find out for ourselves, without asking anyone, that this is exactly what we should do), we demand from her some kind of special dispassion, clairvoyance, and some, perhaps, even want to work miracles. For example, you are told: "When you pray the Jesus Prayer, do not enter into conversation with your thoughts, because this will increase your passion," and you wonder why she dares to give you such advice, when she herself is not passionless. And the impassive one, do you think he would give you other advice? I would give the same advice. And from this, from exaggerated demands, distrust arises. Distrust, self-will, arrogance - and such a "zealot of Orthodoxy" is in fact deprived of a real opportunity to benefit from spiritual guidance and greatly complicates his spiritual life and salvation itself, refusing the modest help that God's Providence has given him.

Of course, it would be good if each of us had such an old woman as Amma Synclitica, Amma Sarah, Amma Theodora and other venerable ascetics. But I think that even in the flourishing times of monasticism, not everyone had such elders and such elders. For example, we sometimes read in the patericons that a certain elder came, for example, to Anthony the Great and brought his disciple with him. One can understand that this elder sought from the great ascetic edification for himself and, perhaps, for his disciple. In addition, it can be assumed that the great elders, the great leaders were simply physically incapable of constantly, daily monitoring all their children. Here too you see that sisters D. and A. can hardly cope with you; And imagine the ancient times when thousands of monks lived in monasteries! Pachomius the Great led several monasteries, and each had a thousand or more monks. Could Pachomius the Great, whom all of them, of course, considered their spiritual mentor, guide them directly? Of course, this is impossible. And at the same time, it is also impossible to imagine that these people were without leadership. This means that each of them was instructed by some elder or spiritual father, whatever you call him. In general, they had leaders, but, apparently, not as outstanding in their spiritual qualities as Pachomius the Great. And we know nothing about these people: neither their names, nor any special virtues. St. John of the Ladder says: let passionate people be happy, because after their healing they can be helpers and guides for everyone. Because, having the experience of struggling with passions (if, of course, they really fight them), they can share this experience with others - their brothers or sisters. And John Climacus also says that there are people who, being in the mire of passions, as if in a pit, warn those who pass by not to fall into this pit as well. And the Lord, seeing their good deeds, finally delivers them from passion. That is, a person can be a mentor even when passions are active in him, he does not necessarily have to be dispassionate. But it is one thing when a person wages a struggle with passions and, as it were, detaches himself from his own struggle, leads others, and another thing when he leads under the influence of passion - such a person really does not have the right to be an elder. If someone who is subject to pride to such an extent that he does not notice it and is guided by it in his actions, instructs others, then, of course, he will do harm. And a certain person, even if he has pride, struggles with it and stands above it, he notices it and guides it not under the influence of this passion, but as if in spite of it - such a person has the right to be a leader, and he will help others.

Such a correction is necessary with regard to the defenders of the eldership and the people who glorify it. This is not only theoretical, but also vitally important. It is impossible to idealize the elder, because in this way we actually overthrow him. First we idealize it, then we see that it does not correspond to the ideal, and we lose faith in it. You need to approach it simply and, if I may say so, in a businesslike way, and then there will be benefits. We must remember two things: that an elder does not have to be a saint and that if we do not engage in mental work, no elder will help us. In fact, it will not even be needed.

Question. Is it necessary to convince of the benefits of mental activity people who believe that prayer will inevitably lead to delusion, and that prayer is the work of the saints? The dispute was about the fact that first one must acquire repentance and humility, and then dare to say the Jesus Prayer, and not achieve repentance through prayer.

Answer. It's like saying, "Eat first, and then cook dinner." How can you eat first if you don't have dinner ready yet? This is simply absurd. Maybe there are other ways to achieve repentance and humility, but in any case, it is prayer. And in the broad sense of the word, this method will still be mental action. Suppose I read not the Jesus Prayer, but the Psalms, I begin to practice attentive, repentant reading of the Psalms. Theoretically, this is possible, but much more difficult. If we cannot acquire repentance and humility with the help of the Jesus Prayer, it is difficult for us; if we manage to fall into delusion, even engaging in the Jesus Prayer, which in its content is a prayer of repentance, which by its content teaches us not to rely on ourselves and thus to humble ourselves, then all the more will we fall into delusion, reading some long prayers. Therefore, it seems to me that it is almost impossible to achieve repentance and humility without mental action, without the Jesus Prayer, in practice. Theoretically, yes, it is possible to acquire these virtues by practicing prayers a lot, but at the same time you still need to manage to watch your inner life. And this is much more difficult when reading long prayers, for example, penitential canons, than when engaging in the Jesus Prayer. Is it worth convincing someone of the benefits of smart action? Looking at you, a person can say: "This is the result of intelligent action." You have to save yourself. And besides, a lot depends on who will convince. If I try to persuade you, yes, I have the right to do so, and it is even my duty; If this is done by the monastery elders or abbess, it is also their duty to persuade, and not yet everyone, but those people who obey them or trust them in some way, turn to them. And some ordinary novice, who, perhaps, by her behavior can still seduce some worldly person, of course, must remain silent, because this is not her business.

Question. In the convent there are sisters who know a lot both spiritually and educationally, but nevertheless are not particularly successful; Why does this happen, why does quantity not turn into quality?

Answer. Spiritual success does not depend on education, but on various spiritual qualities, initially on zeal. Then, of course, humility, obedience, and similar spiritual qualities are very important. And education means nothing here. For example, Elder Silouan was illiterate, but he was also highly successful. Anthony the Great was completely illiterate. Of course, education does not hinder spiritual progress, but it does not contribute either; It is a neutral thing that can both benefit a person or even other people through him, and harm if he uses it incorrectly. For example, Origen was an unusually educated man, but he used his abilities to the detriment of the Church and became one of the outstanding, so to speak, heresiarchs. In his books there were so many false teachings that many heretics later borrowed them from him; Origen is the founder of almost all heresies, he has propagated so many different errors. But he was a man of genius. So education is not of fundamental importance. As for "those who know much in the spiritual sense"... What does it mean to know a lot in the spiritual sense? Real spiritual knowledge is experienced. This is valuable. And when a person has read a lot of books, for example, the Holy Fathers who write on ascetic topics, then this is not spiritual knowledge, it is purely theoretical training that a person can use; it would be useful if there were zeal and diligence. And if a person reads books, but does not do anything, then, perhaps, there will be harm from this. Daydreaming may arise. Take, for example, the book of Isaac the Syrian: while you are reading, it seems to you that you are Isaac the Syrian. You read Symeon the New Theologian, you think: "I am Symeon the New Theologian." And so on. And a person dreams of himself, but in fact does not lead a spiritual life; It turns out that he is looking at a picture on which a source of water is drawn, but he does not drink this water. Or he dreams that he is walking, but he is actually lying and sleeping. This is what happens to someone who reads a lot of books, knows a lot, but does nothing. And on the contrary, if a person, perhaps, knows little in this respect, has read few books, but has his own experience, tries to fulfill what he has learned, reads in order to fulfill and verify his own experience, he can succeed much more.

It is probably about the Jesus Prayer that its quantity turns into quality, and even then not always, but only when a person shows some diligence. Because if he carefully follows the rule and even reads a prayer throughout the day, but does not diligently pay attention, then quantity will never turn into quality.